[1] ‘The Vocabulary of the New Testament’, JBL 52 (1933), pp. 131–9 = (ed.) Stewart, Z., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford, 1972) 1, pp. 341–7.Google Scholar

[2] The phrase of Käsemann, E., ‘On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’, New Testament Questions of Today (London, 1969), pp. 108–37, here pp. 124 f.Google Scholar

[3] Cf. here, e.g., Barth, G., Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit (Biblisch-theologische Studien 4, Neukirchen, 1981), pp. 95 f.Google Scholar; Braun, H., ‘Das “Stirb und werde” in der Antike und im Neuen Testament’ in Libertas Christiana (FS Delekat, BEvth 26, München, 1957), pp. 9–29Google Scholar= Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen, 1962), pp. 136–58, here p. 155Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit: a Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London, 1975), p. 268 (tentatively)Google Scholar; Gäumann, N., Taufe und Ethik: Studien zu Römer 6 (BEvTh 47, München, 1967), p. 48Google Scholar; Güttgemanns, E., Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr: Studien zur paulinischen Christologie (FRLANT 90, Göttingen, 1966), p. 218 n. 45Google Scholar; Jervell, J., Imago Dei: Gen 1,26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT 58, Göttingen, 1960), p. 257Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus: a Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London, 1968), p. 15Google Scholar, and An die Römer (HbNT 8a, Tübingen, 1974 ²), pp. 153, 157Google Scholar; Lohse, E., ‘Taufe und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus’ in KuD 11 (1965), pp. 308–24, here p. 314 n. 19Google Scholar, and ‘Wort und Sakrament in der paulinischen Theologie’ in (ed.) Viering, K., Zu Karl Barths Lehre von der Taufe (Gütersloh, 1971), pp. 44–59, here p. 50Google Scholar; Merk, O., Handeln aus Glauben: die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik (MThSt 5, Marburg, 1968), p. 24Google Scholar; Tannehill, R. C., Dying and Rising with Christ: a Study in Pauline Theology (BZNW 32, Berlin, 1966), p. 10Google Scholar; Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (StNT 7, Gütersloh, 1972), p. 47.Google Scholar

[4] Cf., e.g., Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief (Regensburg, 1957–), pp. 299, 304Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., Baptism in the Theology ofSt Paul: a Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford, 1964), e.g. p. 71Google Scholar; Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (HTheolkommNt 6, Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 1977), p. 194.Google Scholar

[5] History, Time and Deity (Manchester, 1965), p. 26 and n. 4; even Brandon qualifies this: ‘it would seem that the Apostle must. … have been reminding his readers of what they already knew’; ‘it would seem more likely that Paul here … perceives suddenly a deeper significance in the existent custom’.

[6] Cf. Frankemölle, H., Das Taufverständnis des Paulus: Taufe, Tod und Auferstehung nach Röm 6 (SBS 47, Stuttgart, 1970), p. 40Google Scholar; Kuss, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 297 (he merely observes that the phrase itself does not prove ‘die Herleitung der bisher als spezifisch paulinisch geltenden Tauftheologie des Mitsterben und Mitauferstehens aus einem ‘vorpaulinischen’ hellenistischen Christentum’; it is clear elsewhere that he is prepared to consider the possibility of Christian and non-Christian influence on Paul's formulations at this point) and ‘Zur Frage einer vorpaulinischen Todestaufe’, MThz 4 (1953), pp. 1–17, here p. 15 n. 94; Mussner, F., ‘Zur paulinischen Tauflehre in Röm. 6. 1–6: Versuch einer Auslegung’ in Praesentia Salutis: Gesammelte Studien zu Fragen und Themen des Neuen Testaments (Düsseldorf, 1967), pp. 189–96, here p. 189Google Scholar; Nock, A. D., ‘Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background’ in (ed.) Rawlinson, A. E. J., Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation (London/New York/Toronto, 1935), pp. 51–156, here p. 115Google Scholar; Wagner, G., Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries: the Problem of the Pauline Doctrine of Baptism in Romans VI.1–11, in the Light of Its Religio-Historical ‘Parallels’ (Edinburgh, 1967), p. 278.Google Scholar

[7] An die Römer (HbNT 3. 1, Tübingen, 1906), p. 34.Google Scholar

[8] Ibid., p. 30;cf. Braumann, G., Vorpaulinische christliche Taufverkündigung bei Paulus (BWANT 82, Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 54 f.; Tannehill, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 12.Google Scholar

[9] So, e.g., the comms ad loc. of C. K. Barrett (BNTC, London, 1962); E. Best (CNEB, Cambridge, 1967); C. E. B. Cranfield (ICC, Edinburgh, 1975); F. J. Leenhardt (London, 1961); H. A. W. Meyer-B. Weiss (KEK, Göttingen, 18867); O. Michel (KEK, Göttingen, 1966¹³); J. Murray (NIC, London/Edinburgh, 1960);U. Wilckens (EKK, Zürich/Einsiedeln/Koln/Neukirchen, 1980), and many others.

[10] Various suggestions have been made: Mosaic – e.g. the comms ad loc. of P. Althaus (NTD 6, Göttingen, 1954⁸), Leenhardt, Lietzmann, Murray, A. Schlatter (Gottes Gerechtigkeit, Stuttgart, 1959³), Wilckens; Roman – generally not favoured, but cf. Meyer-Weiss, pp. 328 f.; law in general – the comms of Best, J. Denney (ExpGkT 2, London, 1900), J. Knox (IntB 9, New York/Nashville, 1954), M.-J. Lagrange (EB, Paris, 1931), Michel, W. Sanday-A. C. Headlam (ICC, Edinburgh, 1902⁵); ‘religion’ – K. Barth (Oxford, 1933).

[11] So, e.g., on 1 Cor. 6. 2, 9 cf. H. Conzelmann's comm. ad loc. (KEK, Göttingen, 1969¹¹) and on 6. 15 Barrett's (BNTC, London, 1968: ‘Paul implies that his readers ought to know’). 6. 16b may imply that they should have known what is asserted in 16a from their knowledge of Gen. 2. 24. Arguably 6. 15 merely assumes that they should have known that they belonged to Christ, body and all, and that therefore their bodies (and limbs) were his; cf. my ‘The Body of Christ and Related Concepts in I Corinthians’, SJT 24 (1971), pp. 74–96, here pp. 74 f.

[12] As we saw in the case of Brandon (n. 5 above).

[13] Op. cit. (n. 6), p. 279; cf. also the comms ad loc. of M.-J. Lagrange (EB, Paris, 1931); F. F. Bruce (TNTC, London, 1963); Sanday-Headlam. Compare Paul's use of άγυο¯ω oˇτι in Rom. 2. 4: surely ‘that God's goodness calls you to repentance’ is something that Paul's readers should have known?

[14] Mit Christus leben: eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung (AThANT 61, Zürich, 1971), p. 195Google Scholar; cf. Schnackenburg, R., ‘Todes- und Lebensgemeinschaft mil Christus: neue Studien zu Röm 6,1–11’, MThZ 6 (1955), pp. 32–53, here p. 42: ‘Paulus setzt nur voraus, daß alle Christen um die Wirkung der Taufe wußten, zur Gemeinschaft mit dem Herm zu führen, und insinuiert seinen Lesern das sich für ihn daraus ergebende Verständnis’.Google Scholar

[15] Cf. Barrett, , Rom., p. 124Google Scholar; Dinkier, E., ‘Römer 6,1–14 und das Verhältnis von Taufe und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus’ in (ed.) de Lorenzi, L., Battesimo e Giustizia in Rom 6 e 8 (Serie Mono-grafica di ‘Benedictina’, sezione biblico-ecumenica 2, Roma, 1974), pp. 83–103, here pp. 90 f. (but cf. p. 92); Kuss, Röm., pp. 303, 306 (but cf. p. 321); Mussner, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 192; Schlier, Röm., p. 196Google Scholar; Thüsing, W., Per Christum in Deum: Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (NtlAbh N.F. 1, Münster, 1965 ²), pp. 70 f., 139–41.Google Scholar

[16] See above n. 3.

[17] Cf., e.g., Tannehill, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 10; Beckei, J., Auferstehungder Toten im Urchristentum (SBS 82, Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 59 f.Google Scholar

[18] Bauer–Arndt–Gringrich, s.v. έκ §1b: ‘With a group or company from which the separation takes place’; Grimm-Thayer² s.v. έκ I.2.

[19] Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich, ibid. §lc: ‘of situations and circumstances out of which someone is brought’, comparing inter alia Rom. 11. 15, ‘life from the dead’; cf. also Demosth. XVIII.131; Soph., Oed. rex 454; Ant. 1093; Xenophon, An. VII.7.28; Cyr. III.17; also Liddell–Scott–Jones s.v. I.3; Grimm–Thayer²ibid. I.5.

[20] So Wilckens, Röm. II, p. 21 and n. 76, rejecting any causal sense for ώοel (contrast the comms of Barrett, Schlier and others); cf. Blass–Debrunner–Funk §453(3); Blass–Debrunner–Rehkopf §425 n. 5; Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich and Liddell–Scott–Jones s.v.

[21] As is perhaps the case in 5. 196, where being §ίκaωс is already a thing of the present for Christians (5. 1) and not of the future only. It may still be correct to describe these futures as ‘eschatological’ in so far as the eschaton is already here and the final verdict has been anticipated in our present justification (cf. Käsemann, Röm., p. 159; Wilckens, Röm. II, p. 15, who both use the ambiguous word ‘eschatological’; the former at least, I suspect, may mean by it ‘temporally future’, but the latter sees no tension with the present tenses of vv. 4b and 11).

[22] Kuss, Cf., Röm., p. 327Google Scholar; also Dinkier, E., ‘Die Taufaussagen des Neuen Testaments: neu untersucht im Hinblick auf Karl Barths Tauflehre’ in (ed.) Viering, K., op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 60–153, here p. 102.Google Scholar

[23] Cf. Blass–Debrunner–Funk §372(1).

[24] Op. cit. (n. 3), p. 14; cf. Gäumann, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 46 f. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Exeter, 1972), p. 127, interprets O. Michel, Röm., pp. 148 ff., as if the latter thought that Paul was quoting a baptismal liturgy or hymn. It is true that Michel does say that Paul uses the 1st person plural here in contrast to 5. 12–21 (p. 148) and that ‘through the glory of the Father’ in v. 4 ‘klingt bekenntnisartig’ (p. 153). But in vv. 1 f. and 15 the 1st person plural is to be regarded as ‘rhetorisch und dialogisch’ (p. 149); it is only in vv. 4–6 and 8 that it is ‘bekenntnisartig’; that is not the same as saying that it is actually quoting a creed, let alone a hymn, however much it may be possible that isolated words or phrases may contain allusions to, or echoes of, such material.

[25] Cf. Best, Rom., p. 68: vv. 5–7 ‘carry on the thought of verses 3–4’.

[26] Cf. Käsemann, Röm., p. 159; also R. Bultmann, Art. γωώοκkω κτλ in TDNT I, pp. 689–714, here p. 708.

[27] Cf. Käsemann, Rom., p. 161.

[28] Cf., e.g., Acts 2. 24; 1 Pet. 3. 18, 22; Rev. 1. 18.

[29] Baptism (n. 4), pp. 33 f.

[30] In ‘Die Taufe im Neuen Testament’ in (eds.) Breit, H., Seitz, M., Calwer Predigthilfen: Taufe (Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 9–28, here p. 19Google Scholar, and ‘Das Verständnis der Taufe nach Römer 6’ in (ed.) Prot. Landeskirchenrat der Pfalz, Bewahren und Erneuern (FS R. T. Schaller, Speyer, 1980), pp. 135–53, here p. 140 (why ‘must’ Paul quote tradition here in its original wording?).Google Scholar

[31] He quotes Rom. 7. 4, 6; 2 Cor. 5. 14 f.; Gal. 2. 9; 5. 24; 6. 14.

[32] Cf. Tannehill, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 13; also Dunn, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 335.

[33] ‘Erwägungen zur neutestamentlichen Begründung der Taufe’in (eds.) Eltester, W., Kettler, F. H., Apophoreta (FS E. Haenchen, BZNW 30, Berlin, 1964), pp. 169–77 (the quotation is from p. 173)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Taufe’, ThBl 17 (1938), cols. 42–52, here col. 50 n. 22Google Scholar; Tannehill, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 41.

[34] Quoted from Jonas, H., The Gnostic Religion: the Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston, 1963 ²), p. 83Google Scholar; this fragment is also cited by Dibelius, M., Greeven, H., An dieKolosser.Epheser. An Philemon (HbNT 12, Tubingen, 1953 ²), p. 91, following Reitzenstein.Google Scholar

[35] Cf., e.g., Barth, M., Ephesians (AncB, Garden City, 1974) 1, pp. 135 ff.; II, pp. 543 ff., 691 ff.Google Scholar; Best, Rom., p. 67; Betz, H. D., Galatians: a Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia, Philadelphia, 1979), p. 187Google Scholar (‘we ought not … to interpret baptism into these passages’ in Gal. referring to ‘dying and rising with Christ’; cf. p. 123); Dibelius, M., ‘The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites’ in (eds.) Francis, F. O., Meeks, W. A., Conflict at Colossae (Sources for Biblical Study 4, Missoula, 1975), pp. 61–121, here p. 96Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of P aul to the Romans (MNTC, London, 1932), p. 87Google Scholar; Kennedy, H. A. A., St Paul and the Mystery Religions (London/New York/Toronto, n.d.), pp. 226 f., 241 f.Google Scholar; Otto, G., Die mit syn verbundenen Formulierungen im paulinischen Schrifttum (Diss. Berlin, 1952), p. 43 (cf. p. 85)Google Scholar; cf. also G. Barth, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 130 ff.

[36] Cf. W. Grundmann, Art. ‘oύυ–μßτά. κτλ’, κτλ’ in TDNT VII, p. 782; also Cranfield, Rom. I, p. 312; Frankemölle, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 102; Hahn, ‘Taufe’ (n. 30), p. 23 n. 60; Kuss, Röm. p. 328 (more cautiously on p. 336); Schnackenburg, Baptism (n. 4), pp. 174 f., and ‘Die Adam-Christus-Typologie (Röm 5,12–21) als Voraussetzung für das Taufverständnis in Röm 6,1–14’ in (ed.) de Lorenzi, L., op. cit. (n. 15), pp. 37–55, here p. 52Google Scholar; Schulz, A., Nachfolge und Nachahmen: Studien zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik (StANT, München, 1962), p. 184Google Scholar; Wagner, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 284. Contrast Gäumann, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 55 f.; Käsemann, Röm., p. 152; Lohmeyer, E., ‘Σύυ X ρωτώ’ in (ed.) Schmidt, K. L., Festgabe für A. Deissmann zum 60. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1927), pp. 218–57, here pp. 229–31, 248, 256 f.Google Scholar

[37] Cf. Liddell-Scott-Jones s.v. συυαποθυηήοκω

[38] Cf. D. H. Wiens, ‘“Mystery” Concepts in Primitive Christianity and in Its Environment’ in ANRW II.23.2, pp. 1248–84, here pp. 1277 f.

[39] C. K. Barrett, comm. ad loc. (BNTC, London, 1973), rightly observes that ‘Paul does not say, All were as good as dead, or All were regarded as if they were dead, or All did not need to die because one died in their place’; yet is his own suggestion, ‘all men became potentially dead in the sense about to be described in the next verse’, any better? Whether or not we fully understand it this verse seems to give pregnant expression to what C. F. D. Moule calls an inclusive or corporate Christology (The Phenomenon of the New Testament: an Inquiry into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament, SBT 2nd Ser. 1, London, 1967, p. 33) or Bultmann, R. a ‘juristische Stellvertretungsgedanke’ (comm. ad loc., ed. Dinkler, E., KEK 6, Göttingen, 1976)Google Scholar; cf. further Güttgemanns, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 307–10. Yet in a sense the idea of ‘being regarded as …’ is implicit in the dying here in so far as Paul primarily has dying as passing under God's verdict on sin in mind here (cf. v. 21 and the sense of dying implied in Gen. 2. 17); also Klaiber, W., Rechtfertigung und Gemeinde: Untersuchungen zum paulinischen Kirchenverständnis (FRLANT 127, Göttingen, 1982), p. 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[40] Ridderbos, H., Paul: an Outline of His Theology (London, 1977), p. 404.Google Scholar

[41] Cf., e.g., Brandon, S. G. F., ‘Divine Kings and Dying Gods’, HibJ 53 (1955), pp. 327–33Google Scholar; Dörrie, H., ‘Mysterien (in Kult und Religion) und Philosophic’ in (ed.) Vermaseren, M. J., Orientslische Religionen im Römerreich (EPRO 93, Leiden, 1981), pp. 341–62, here pp. 342 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, R. L., ‘Mithraism and Roman Society: Social Factors in the Explanation of Religious Change in the Roman Empire’, Religion 2 (1972), p. 113 n. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grant, F. C., Roman Hellenism and the New Testament (Edinburgh/London, 1962), p. 39 (cf. pp. 50, 77)Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion II (HAW V.2, München, 1961²), pp. 685, 693Google Scholar; Wagner, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 268; cf. also now Griffiths, J. G., ‘The concept of Divine Judgement in the Mystery Religions’ in (eds.) Bianchi, U., Vermaseren, M. J., La Soteriologia del Culti Orientali nell' Impero Romano (EPRO 92, Leiden, 1982), pp. 192–219, here pp. 215 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and R. Turcan, ‘Salut mithriaque et soteriologie néoplatoni-cienne’, ibid., pp. 173–89, here p. 175 (cf. also his colloquium summary on p. xvii).

[42] Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven/London, 1981), p. 172 n. 22.Google Scholar

[43] The phrase of Bianchi, U., The Greek Mysteries (IoR 17.3, Leiden, 1976), p. 5.Google Scholar

[44] Cf. Cumont, F., Lux perpetua (Paris, 1949), p. 236; MacMullen, op. cit. (n. 42), p. 106; Wiens, loc. cit. (n. 38), p. 1250.Google Scholar

[45] The Taurobolium: Its Evolution and Terminology (EPRO 10, Leiden, 1969), pp. 119–21; cf. M. Simon, ‘The religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Fifty Years Later’, RelSt 11 (1975), pp. 135–44, here p. 141.

[46] Dionysos Slain (Baltimore/London, 1979), especially pp. 72 f.

[47] Op. cit. (n. 5), pp. 20 ff.

[48] Met. XI.21, tr. J. G. Griffiths (EPRO 39, Leiden, 1975).

[49] Conversion: the Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford, 1933), p. 12.

[50] That would help to explain Apuleius' silence about any role of Osiris in the Isis initiation at Kenchieai; besides, Isis' consort there was probably Sarapis (compare, e.g., maps 11 and 12 in M. Malaise, Inventaire préliminaire des documents Égyptiens découverts en Italic, EPRO 21, Leiden, 1972; also G. J. F. Kater-Sibbs, Preliminary Inventory of Sarapis Monuments, EPRO 36, Leiden, 1973, p. 84 – Corinth; L. Vidman, Isis und Sarapis bei den Griechen and Römern: epigraphische Studien zur Verbreitung und zu den Trägem des ägyptischen Kultes, R V V 29, Berlin, 1970, p. 15: ‘Osiris schien den Griechen vielleicht zu ägyptisch’). Sarapis does not seem to have been spoken of as ‘dying and rising’.

[51] Cf. the comm. ad loc. of A. Pastorino (Biblioteca di Studi Superiori 27, Firenze, 1969).

[52] Cf. Black, M., Romans (NCeB, London, 1973), p. 93.Google Scholar

[53] Siber, , op. cit. (n. 14), especially p. 208Google Scholar; cf. Schnackenburg, , Baptism (n. 4), p. 33.Google Scholar

[54] Kuss, , Röm., p. 309, tentatively raises the question whether Hellenistic Christians may not have preceded Paul in forging closer ties between baptism and Christ's death (cf. also in MThZ 4, p. 15).Google Scholar

[55] Röm. II, p. 11 (cf. p. 50); G. Barth, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 99; cf. however Siber, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 208.

[56] Cf., e.g., Lohse, ‘Taufe’ (n. 3), pp. 321 ff.

[57] Interpreting these datives as datives of relation or respect (Blass–Debrunner–Funk §197); cf. Althaus, Röm., p. 52; Frankemölle, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 39 (‘betreffs der Sündenmacht’ – contrast p. 34); Moule, C. F. D., ‘Death “to Sin”, “to Law”, and “to the World”: a Note on Certain Datives’ in (eds.) Descamps, A., Halleux, A. de, Mélanges bibliques en hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux (Paris, 1970), pp. 367–75Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, Baptism (n. 4), p. 37 (‘over against the power of sin’ – contrast p. 33).

[58] See above p. 342 and n. 34.

[59] So, e.g., recently Hahn, ‘Verständnis’ (n. 30), p. 140; cf. n. 17 above and, on Eph. 5. 14, the arguments of Noack, B., ‘Das Zitat in Ephes. 5,14’, StTh 5 (1951), pp. 52–64.Google Scholar

[60] Adduced by, e.g., Siber, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 201 n. 31; Dibelius–Greeven, op. cit. (n. 34), p. 91.

[61] The LCL's ‘from sleep arising’ is therefore perhaps misleading and is based on the reading έγєίρου the MSS and most edd. seem to have the active έγєίρє, though the Budé translation takes this too intransitively.

[62] Cf. 1 Cor. 15 again and my ‘The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians xv’, NT 23 (1981), pp. 229–41.

[63] Whittaker, J., ‘Plutarch, Platonism and Christianity’ in (eds.) Blumenthal, H. J., Markus, R. A., Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought (FS A. H. Armstrong, London, 1981), pp. 50–63Google Scholar, here p. 56; cf. A. Oepke, Art. ‘άυίστημι, κτλ.’ in TDNT I, pp. 368–72; Fascher, E., ‘Anastasis – Resurrectio – Auferstehung’, ZNW 40 (1941), pp. 166–229, especially p. 187Google Scholar; Cavallin, H. C. C., Life after Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor. 15 I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (CB.NT 7.1, Lund, 1974), pp. 135–40.Google Scholar

[64] Cf. Schenke, H.-M., ‘Auferstehungsglaube und Gnosis’, ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 123–6Google Scholar; n.b. how this is a feature of Christian Gnosticism.

[65] Oepke, loc. cit. (n. 63), p. 369, quotes Plato, Symp. 179C, under ‘Resurrection in the Greek World’, but the term used there is άυєīυαι.

[66] Op. cit. (n. 63), pp. 41 f.; Cf. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HThS 26, Cambridge, Mass., 1972), pp. 134–7.Google Scholar

[67] Cf. Stemberger, G., Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca. 170 v Chr – 100 n Chr) (AnBib 56, Roma, 1972), p. 38.Google Scholar

[68] Pace Brandenburger, E., ‘Die Auferstehung der Glaubenden als historisches und theologisches Problem’, WuD 9 (1967), pp. 16–33, here pp. 23 ff.Google Scholar

[69] Ed. Philonenko = p. 49, 11. 19–22, Batiffol.

[70] If πάυτα is still the object of καλέσαζ this seems to imply that God's work in creation is described as a calling out of death to life.

[71] Whereas the Pharisees hold that the immortal souls of the good pass into another body, 8. 14 (163); this is a good indication of the difficulty of the idea of resurrection for Hellenistic minds, for this sounds more like the transmigration of the soul.

[72] Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135) II (ed. Black, M., Millar, F., Vermes, G., Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 582Google Scholar f., holds that ‘belief in the resurrection of the dead was not a central tenet of the Qumran faith’ and occasional references like 1QH 6. 34 f.; 11. 10–14 ‘may be simply metaphorical’. Contrast Kuhn, H.-W., Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedem von Qumran (StUNT 4, Göttingen, 1966), pp. 12, 185.Google Scholar

[73] Lohse, E., Die Texte aus Qumran (München, 1964), p. 289 n. 30Google Scholar; others take as ‘of men’ as in Is. 41. 14 (reff. in Kuhn, op. cit. (n. 72), p. 79 n. 1); a play on words is possible.

[74] Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1968 ³), p. 186, despite the reference to metaphors in n. 72 aboveGoogle Scholar; cf. Kuhn, ibid.; also Nickelsburg, op. cit. (n. 66), pp. 150 f.

[75] Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism: Studies of Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (London, 1974) 2, p. 131 n. 575Google Scholar; however, the examples that he cites are of the restoration of the dead to this-worldly life (as in the healing miracles of Jesus) and not of their being raised to a new, enduring form of life.

[76] Met. XIV.824–828 (tr. F. J. Miller, LCL, London/New York, 1916).

[77] Cf. R. Bultmann, Art. ‘θάυτος, κτλ in TDNT III, pp. 7 ff., here p. 12, and texts like Epict., Diss. 1.3.3; 5.7; 9. 19; III.23.28; Philostr., Vit. Ap. I.9; Sen., Ep. I.2. Philo contrasts the death of the soul with that of the body in Leg. all. I.76; III.52, etc.

[78] Cf. e.g., G. Bornkamm, ‘Taufe und neues Leben bei Paulus’, Das Ende des Gesetzes:Paulusstudien (BEvTh 16, München, 1966⁵), pp. 34–50, here p. 37 n. 5; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (Göttingen, 1965⁵), especially p. 140; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament I (London, 1952) §13.1 (pp. 140–4); §34.3 (pp. 311 f.); Gäumann, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 46; Käsemann, Röm., p. 153; W. G. Kümmel, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen (GNT 3, Göttingen, 1969), p. 190; Lietzmann, Röm., pp. 30 f.; Merk, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 23 n. 110; Michel, Röm., p. 139.